bushwalker zane wrote:And please remember to spread this message far and wide, email your friends who might be on the fringe of the issue. Ask them to spread the message too! Like so many people have said, this is the time to stand. Imagine if the proposal goes through, and in a few years there are proposals coming out our ears trying to damage our wild places. Wouldn't it be sad to sit there and think "I could have done something about this".

The internet has given us a powerful tool for this sort of thing, so bushwalker Zane has good advice: tell people. It's not just a small island in Tasmania. A successful appeal will be a legal precedent, used by other governments to justify rezoning and even excising parts of national parks and WHAs.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

Well done on the organisation of Saturday's rally, it was good to hear Labour are taking an interest in the failing EPA process, and also to point out without a doubt that the liberals see Tasmanian wilderness as as prime realestate and will happily change the rules to ensure they do everything they can to spite the left. It is sad to hear rambling voices claim that the Greens want to 'lock up' our state when it is these wild areas that are being 'locked up' by our government unless you have a few thousand to throw around... I urge people to get along to these events where possible, it falls on deaf ears with our current government sadly but definitely interests the center left.

stepbystep wrote:A couple pics from the Hobart rally. Some good speeches but a disappointingly small crowd. The ramifications of this will be so far reaching if it's not stopped. Please bushwalkers, get active!!

Some good shots there. I saw a summary on the news that night and noticed how not huge the crowd was. I really wanted to make it, but was stuck on a redline coach that arrived in Hobart just in time for the event to finish

Totally agree with Zane - we need to spread the message around the country!EDO Tasmania has done a lot of work on this proposal - there's lots of background on their website: http://www.edotas.org.auThe Federal Government withdrew funding to all EDOs a few years ago, so they are financially stretched, and also seeking funding to support this case:https://www.givenow.com.au/edotas_malbena

Wilderness management plan will identify tourism opportunitiesThe authors of a tourism master plan for Tasmania’s protected wilderness will go a step further than required by UNESCO and identify new opportunities for development.EMILY BAKER, Mercury

|THE authors of a delayed tourism master plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area will identify new opportunities for tourism development within the protected land.

An update on the progress of the long-awaited World Heritage Area tourism master plan showed that the document — expected by the end of this year — will not only provide strategic guidance for operators looking to work in the zone but identify further opportunities for tourism development, including new experiences and sites.

The draft tourism master plan would be placed on public exhibition once it had been endorsed by state and federal governments, the ERA Planning update said.

“[The draft document] will … provide clarity on the tourism experiences and sites, their prioritisation in terms of management and planning, the level of services within each area of the TWWHA, together with investment needs and priorities,” the update said.

“The draft tourism master plan will need to provide clarity to ensure that the enhancement of existing sites, together with the identification of new experiences and sites, will achieve sustainable growth in tourism visitation and development and maintain and enhance the TWWHA natural and cultural [universal outstanding values].”

UNESCO in 2015 requested the State Government deliver a tourism master plan to guide tourism development within the World Heritage Area.

The body last year listed the impacts of tourism, visitation and recreation as among threats faced by the area, which accounts for about one-fifth of the state.

Greens leader Cassy O’Connor said the update released this week by project leaders ERA Planning “confirm this is all about continued commercial exploitation of the wilderness”.

“The objective must be to protect the TWWHA’s values for all to enjoy but it’s clearly not,” Ms O’Connor said.

“It’s about private profit.”

In recommending the development of a tourism master plan, UNESCO called for the development of “strict criteria for tourism development … which would be in line with the primary goal of protecting the property’s [outstanding universal values]”.

The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders ~ Edward Abbey

Hi StepbystepThe Tassie National Parks Association and others have announced a boycott of the consultation for the wilderness tourism plan, citing issues with process, see here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17410&start=300#p375709John

johnrs wrote:Hi StepbystepThe Tassie National Parks Association and others have announced a boycott of the consultation for the wilderness tourism plan, citing issues with process, see here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17410&start=300#p375709John

Yep. Desperate times, sadly.

The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders ~ Edward Abbey

Tasmanian National Parks Association15 June at 13:07 · There are many components to the Lake Malbena issue. We have prepared a background and summary to describe how we got to a hearing in the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal. This is not just an appeal about a tourism development in a Tasmanian national park. We anticipate that the outcome will set a national precedent.And we still urgently need donations to help pay for this appeal - https://tnpa.org.au/donate/Fishers & Walkers Against Helicopter Access TasmaniaThe Wilderness Society TasmaniaTasmanian Conservation TrustEDO Tasmania - Environmental Defenders Office Tasmania

johnrs wrote:Tasmanian National Parks Association15 June at 13:07 · There are many components to the Lake Malbena issue. We have prepared a background and summary to describe how we got to a hearing in the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal. This is not just an appeal about a tourism development in a Tasmanian national park. We anticipate that the outcome will set a national precedent.And we still urgently need donations to help pay for this appeal - https://tnpa.org.au/donate/Fishers & Walkers Against Helicopter Access TasmaniaThe Wilderness Society TasmaniaTasmanian Conservation TrustEDO Tasmania - Environmental Defenders Office Tasmania

I agree that this is an important issue for both Tasmania and the rest of Australia.Like many others I made a submission to Central Highlands Council, and their positive decision has resulted in the upcoming tribunal hearing. So I felt compelled to support it financially, if only in a small way. I noticed that TNPA appeal needs to raise $50K and they are currently just over half way. With EOFY approaching, if you can afford it please consider making a tax deductible donation over $2.

John W

In Nature's keeping they are safe, but through the agency of man destruction is making rapid progress - John Muir c1912

"Mr Hackett said bringing guests to Lake Malbena via helicopter was the most environmentally-conscious way to access the area. The people complaining about his proposed helicopter use were the same bushwalkers who were trampling sensitive vegetation, he said."

Ah yes. I'm sure his guests won't impact the vegetation at all when at Malbena.

Helicopter access to Lake Malbena adds to experience of ‘remoteness’, Planning Tribunal hearing toldUsing helicopters to access a tourism development in the state’s Wilderness World Heritage Area would add to users’ experience of “remoteness”, the Planning Tribunal has heard.

EMILY BAKER, State Political Reporter, MercurySubscriber only

June 25, 2019 8:34pm

A PLANNING expert has argued helicopter access to the Lake Malbena site within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area will help add to users’ experience of “remoteness”.

The Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal on Tuesday sat for the second day to hear an appeal against the Central Highlands Council’s decision to block the Lake Malbena development.

The proposal would have four demountable huts placed on Halls Island within the Walls of Jerusalem National Park, which would make up a standing camp to be accessed by helicopter.

In blocking Wild Drake’s application to build the standing camp in February, Central Highlands Council Mayor Loueen Triffitt outlined ways in which she argued it did not fit within the area’s planning scheme. But she also made it clear the council believed it had been made an unwilling test case for the State Government’s controversial expressions of interest process.

That initiative invites unsolicited proposals for tourism development on public land.

Wild Drake co-owner Daniel Hackett has appealed against the decision in the planning tribunal with the backing of the state’s Parks and Wildlife Service.

All Urban Planning principal Frazer Read faced questioning on the proposal, which he had previously backed as “carefully designed to minimise impacts on the environment” and fitting within permitted uses according to the area’s zoning.

Tribunal members quizzed Mr Read on whether accessing the site by helicopter would fit within its description in the TWWHA management plan as a “self-reliant recreation zone”.

“Access to the site by helicopter adds to the experience of remoteness in some respects,” Mr Read said.

The Tasmanian Government had amended the TWWHA management plan partially to allow the Lake Malbena proposal to proceed, switching the area from “wilderness” to “self-reliant recreation”.

The appeal continues in front of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal until Friday.

"Wild Drake co-owner Daniel Hackett has appealed against the decision in the planning tribunal with the backing of the state’s Parks and Wildlife Service."

I did not know that he had the support of the PWS?!

Yesterday on the ABC radio news I heard an excerpt of Mr Read saying that the helicopter access does not take away from the SRRZ values. My jaw dropped. Maybe if you own your own helicopter and flew it in it might be self reliant?

Not always. While the position is answerable to the minister, there are a range of protections that prevent a government doing something ridiculous (sometimes forcing them to change legislation). I heard ministers often complain about the public service as being glacially slow.

Mr Hackett has told ABC Radio Hobart's Leon Compton he believes his project is being penalised because it's the first to go through the State Government's new approval process for developments in national parks.

"People are using us as a test case," he said.This sounds like Mr Hackett has sprung the obvious. This is all push by the government at any cost.

Our government has no relationship with the natural at all, and these and others to come only highlight that sad aspect of our current legislative body.

It's surprising that no-one has commented on Daniel Hackett's reported statement at the hearing, that his earlier statement that his company would never use helicopter access or build huts in wilderness areas was an "immature opinion"Presumably that would make very many of us remarkably immature for our ages.

In reply Greg French wrote:(Courtesy of Fly Life)I have to say it was hard to listen to the ABC interview in the above post: many people I know had a good old laugh, but it just made me feel unbearably sad. It's hard watching people lynch themselves, even harder when you have counted that person as a friend for more than a decade.In the interview, the proponent says that under Will Hodgman's 2016 management plan much of the World Heritage area is zoned as no-go for helicopters, but so too was Malbena until the minister changed the zoning to accommodate the development. Under the 2016 management plan, zoning is completely arbitrary and can be changed by the minister at a whim without any consultation whatsoever, not with the people or even parliament. The same goes for the provision in the plan to limit helicopter landings to five sites. The Malbena fiasco provides ample evidence that the minister will change the plan to suit any development he chooses to champion.The proponent says that he cannot be held accountable for the government rewriting plans and regulations to accommodate the proposal. But the proponent is not obliged to act as an enabler for the government. As is evidenced by the unprecedented response to the Development Application (approximately 1340 responses against versus 2 in favour), the proposal has no social licence. No one is obliged to pursue a development that has no social licence. The decision to proceed at all costs is the proponent's alone. The proponent should own that decision.The idea that the PWS is morally obliged to act as a joined party in the defence of a Reserve Activity Assessment is absurd. It could just be called as an expert witness, which would save the taxpayer a packet. The government and attorney general are acting on the proponent's behalf.And finally, it is well understood by most developers that they should always argue their case on it's merits, and never play the 'poor me' card.Post Link: https://flylife.com.au/forum/topic/why- ... ost-818585

I still don't see much blame with the proponent (relative to the government agents). We should line up the other forty+ but are unlikely to even know who they really are/ who their responsible person is? Could include the existing operators with their amendments, those occupying 'standing camps' or landing choppers to drop clients in parks, or even those who set up in opposition to their employers or in direct opposition to existing operators product (lack of imagination facilitated by government) , examine their morals.. Lot's of marketers, actions indicate that very few squeaky green or led by or accountable for a set of ethics. Worse still, there's no doubt the Tassie way, sometimes the green huddle, conveniently ignores or even helps promote some of them.

THE tourism industry says aircraft access to Tasmania’s protected wilderness is “essential” but wants greater regulation of flights into the World Heritage Area.

Work is under way on a tourism master plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area — a document requested by UNESCO in 2015.

Tourism Industry Council Tasmania’s submission on the proposed plan has acknowledged visitor access to the world heritage area as an area “of considerable contention” and “immense sensitivity”.

The document said there should be no new roads related to tourism activity in the area and only small, exploratory cruise ships allowed.

But air access — including commercial landings — was “essential” to facilitate human activity within remote areas, the submission said.

The tourism council called for a specific policy and charter to be developed alongside the Tourism Master Plan to regulate propeller and helicopter access within the world heritage area. Tourist aircraft could be industry regulated through tourism council accreditation, the body proposed.

“We believe the net gain of air access over other forms of transport – roads – is far better for management values, however air access itself must be carefully managed,” the council’s submission said. “TICT would support (an aviation access) framework being mandatory in all future leases and licences for tourism operators working within the TWWHA.”

Aircraft are only allowed within certain zones of the world heritage area – subject to restrictions – and operators of scenic and charter flights are asked to adhere to the voluntary Fly Neighbourly Advice guidelines.

Conservation groups have been fighting a proposal for a helicopter-accessed standing camp within the world heritage area, claiming it will destroy other users’ experience.

The eco-tourism proposal for Lake Malbena within the Walls of Jerusalem National Park would have up to 240 helicopter flights into the area a year.

Other requests in the tourism council submission included that specific tourism plans be developed for sites such as Cradle Mountain given the world heritage area was a “diverse and large property”.

It requested that the Tourism Master Plan did not introduce “another or contradictory layer of expectation and management principles” on tourism operators working in the world heritage area. There are more than 200 tourism businesses operating in Tasmanian reserves, about half of which are in the world heritage area.

“Standing camps are demountable and easy to pack up and remove,” Ms Forsyth said.

She argued the huts proposed for Halls Island within the Walls of Jerusalem National Park were not demountable as they would need to be carried in and out by helicopter.

“If the tribunal agrees the proposal is not a standing camp then it is not an allowed for use under the [Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area] management plan,” Ms Forsyth said.

The hearing resumed on Thursday morning where two wildlife biologists gave evidence on the potential effect of helicopter flights on endangered wedge-tailed eagles.

In his closing submission, Attorney-General Elise Archer’s lawyer Paul Turner SC argued for the tribunal to dispose of the matter and that the applicant wasn’t required to apply for a permit as the Land Use and Planning Approvals Act did not apply to reserved land covered by a management plan.

Ms Forsyth argued the two were intended to operate together and a planning authority could defer to the management plan to determine if a permit should be granted.

The tribunal will hear closing submissions from Daniel Hackett’s lawyer Shaun McElwaine SC and Central Highlands Council lawyer David Morris on Friday.

Eagle biologist Jason Wiersma and wildlife biologist Nick Mooney both gave evidence at the appeal against the Central Highlands Council’s decision to block the Lake Malbena development, which resumed on Thursday morning.

Mr Wiersma — appearing as a witness for the council — told the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal he was often met in the air by eagles during flights around Tasmania.

A cluster of three wedge-tailed eagles nests has been identified about 4km from Halls Island within the Walls of Jerusalem National Park, where a standing camp of four demountable huts to be accessed by helicopter have been proposed.

Wild Drake co-owner Daniel Hackett, with the backing of the state’s Parks and Wildlife Service, has appealed to the planning tribunal against the council’s decision in February to reject the proposal.

Mr Hackett sat behind his lawyer in the public gallery for all of Thursday proceedings.

The debate between Mr Wiersma and Mr Mooney centred on the distance required to minimise disturbance on eagles and their breeding season, which runs from July to February.

Mr Mooney said restricting flights to a horizontal distance of more than 1km from known nesting sites was “adequate”, but Mr Wiersma argued it should be a minimum of 2km.

“Eagles do approach helicopters at some distance and they do attack helicopters from some distance,” Mr Wiersma said.

“I believe we have a duty to provide mitigation measures to reduce the risk on threatened species.”

He said the impact of the proposal could range from very little to catastrophic, but not enough study had been done on nesting sites in the area.

Mr Mooney said there would never be no risk and flights, such as crop dusting, occurred across Tasmania every day without any regard to eagles.

“Most of the risks essentially can’t be managed, they just come with people,” he said.

“If the standard overfly is over 1000m the birds will tolerate that in the long term.”

Mr Mooney said if this proposal was approved with a 1km condition, it would be the highest standard in Tasmania in respect to eagles.

He said he had no problem with added precaution by increasing the horizontal distance.

The tribunal will continue to hear closing submission this afternoon and Friday.